User talk:ItsZippy/Archive 5

Thanks for fixing vandalism
Hi, I just noted the vandalism on the Marconi penguin page - and you fixed it while I was still trying to figure out how best to do that. Thanks! JEH (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. The best way to revert vandalism when you see it is to use the undo function. Alternatively, Twinkle is a very helpful tool if you plan to revert vandalism a lot. When reverting vandalism, remember to warn the vandal appropriately. Thanks for your work. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

rice krisspies treats
rice krispies treats were not a treat first who ever put that in was just vandislism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.74.201 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. What you removed wasn't vandalism, as I believe it was added in good faith and it is sourced, though unreliably. If you think there are inaccuracies in the article, feel free to remove them, provided they aren't supported by a reliable source. I advise you look at WP:VANDAL, which explains what is and what is not vandalism. Thanks for your work here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Change
Thanks homes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.161.209 (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

understod
ok i understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alijamal14 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow
What's the point of requiring the person requesting dispute resolution to notify other involved users, if you are going to close the discussion before any of them have a chance to comment? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - complete mistake; I've explained, apologised and reopened the discussion on the DRN page. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about an article
Hi ItsZippy, I don't think that we have ever interacted before, but I've seen you around quite a bit. I saw that you have a couple theology related Good Article credits. Another user and I have been working on our Prosperity theology page a bit recently, and I'd like to eventually get it up to GA quality. If you have time/interest, could you take a look at the article and give me some feedback? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Mark, thanks for your message. The article you've shown me looks quite interesting - I don't really know anything about it, but I'd certainly be willing to research and help improve the article. I'm a little pushed for time at the moment (I'm currently trying to improve our articles on the teleological argument and ontological argument); however, I will certainly help out when I can. If you want, I can post my initial thoughts on the article later. Thanks again for the message and I look forward to working with you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply and your willingness to help. It might be a good thing that you don't know much about the topic, that way you come with a fresh perspective. Having read a lot about it, User:Ltwin and I might be assuming too much knowledge on the part of the reader. This isn't really time-sensitive or anything, I've been working on it off and on since the summer. Good for you working on such broad topics, it must be tough to narrow down which sources to use. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's marvellous, I'll have a look at the article soon. As you said, not knowing too much will help me to approach it with fresh eyes, as well as maintain NPOV. I might post someone on the talk page in the next few days, just to let you know what I think. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article has had a lot of NPOV issues in the past. Lots of people in the US have very strong opinions about the subject. Academic sources are usually more neutral so I tried to use them when I could. It will be good to have the tone checked though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmens
Hi ItsZippy, just wanted to message you to say that it’s unfortunate that the meditation did not run as it should of done. I would like to thank you anyway for your help, it was quite clear that you would have probably done a good job for us to come to some sort of resolution. Nonetheless, I would like to ask you for your advice, now that the mediation has been closed it seems as though the edit-war is starting again. "User:MamRostam03" now seems to have a new user name "User:KakaSur"… what should be done now? Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Turco, thanks for your message. It seems that, since you messaged me, KakaSur has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so is no longer a problem. I would advise that you keep watching the page and report any more sockpuppets to an administrator (any new user who removes the same information will probably be a sockpuppet). Thanks for your ongoing patience & vigilance, as well as your support and co-operation during our attempted mediation. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi ItsZippy, was wondering if you could give me some advice again as I'm not used to edit-wars and high-heated disputes. Most recently, User:Tavio has been arguing that Iraqi Turkmens do not speak Turkish, which I have no problem with, yet they first started to remove anything that said "Turkish", replacing it with "Azeri", and now they are completely changing the article to the horrid state which was left by the sockpuppets. It is obvious to these users that I do not like confrontation and that I'm not very familiar with procedures in such situation. I would appreciate any help you have to offer. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Turco. First, thank you for avoiding an edit war with this user - that always helps. Taivo is currently blocked until Thursday for edit warring, which should help. If he continues to edit war after his block, I recommend you use the edit warring notice board - be sure you have recent evidence of him violating the 3RR if you do, and make sure you note that it is not the first time it has happened. As you have been already, please remember to observe 3RR yourself. Best of luck with the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Think you might have time?
Hi, I saw that you were volunteering on DRN and that you are familiar with terms used in philosophy, would you mind considering helping us at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard? Thanks! -- un☯mi 04:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
TransporterMan ( TALK ) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gillian Andrassy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gillian Andrassy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Executive function GAN
Hi,

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations, as Executive function, which you are reviewing) is included in the batch being referred to.

Thanks!

MathewTownsend (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Safri Duo and Safri Duo Discography
You have copied back the discography that I just split off from the article because there was a split tag. I have no problem if you do not think the article needed to be split as such, but since you have effectively removed the split tag, I think there ought to be an explanation as to why. Also, I would prefer it if the Safri Duo article was reverted back to what it was (sans tag of course) and the discography articl was deleted. Op47 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Op, thanks for your message. I did not know that there was a split tag beforehand - sorry, I should have checked. Was there a discussion regarding this somewhere, or had no-one expressed an opinion? I merged the articles because I did not believe the discography of Safri Duo to be notable enough on its own to merit an article. If there was not a discussion regarding the split, I'd suggest that we keep the articles merged, restore the tag and initiate a discussion. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no discussion in over a year since the tag was applied. I am a 'willing volunteer' who is trying to clear up the backlog of split tags. On this occasion, the request seemed reasonable to me. In most cases, I am just removing the tag with a note to say why. In this case, from my point of view, it was a marginal decision. If you feel strongly that I made the wrong one then I would rather you revert my changes so that the article is exactly as it was before I came along and then remove the tag. If you do not have a strong opinion then you can just revert your changes. Either way, I thing the tag has had long enough to attract a discussion. I note that you have not touched the page prior to this. I suspect that either way, if anyone is really intrested in the article and notices the change then a discussion will happen soon enough. Either way, I do not want the article as it is because before I got to it this section was nicely formatted into 2 columns. I removed the formatting when I split it off because the formatting suddenly looked wrong when split off. That is why I either want the article reverted to original or reverted to my split. Hope this helps Op47 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you made the split in good faith and you are right; it is a marginal case - I'm not criticising your decision. I am partly at fault, as I did not look at the history before: I was new page patrolling and saw the new article which I thought should probably be merged with the main article, so did so. I would be of the opinion that the article does not need to be split, so would support keeping the article together. If you agree with this, then we can leave it as it is, untagged (and you can format it however you like). If you believe the article should be split, we then would need to discuss it to establish what the consensus is. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your reasoning?
Greetings. It would appear as though you have deleted my Wikipedia page, for reasons of including web content? I can't see my article as a violation and would like to know your reasoning for taking such actions. I haven't even finished writing it, so it might've been fair to atleast see the completed page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.34.89 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. I do not know which article you mean; as I am not an asmin, I am inane to delete articles. If you tell me the name of the article you refer to, I'll see what I can do to help. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if i've used the improper way of writing back to you. My article was "D.A.V.E (Program)" and I was just wondering if you could let me know why you deleted it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy709 (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, thank you. I did not delete the article - that was done by TexasAndroid - but I did mark it for speedy deletion. This was because the article did not assert the importance of the article - for an article to be on Wikipedia, it must be notable. I suggest you take a look at WP:NOTE, our notability guidelines. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)